J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) SHEO Nath Singh has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence of nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default six months' further R.I. Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE conviction of the Applicant is based upon the following findings: (1) that the Applicant had a shop where, amongst other things, he sold oil, (2) that on 22 -12 -1964 at about noon Vijaj Bahadur Srivastava, a Food Inspector, purchased a sample of mustard oil from that shop from a person who posed to be the Applicant, (3) that subsequently the Food Inspector came to learn that the said person was not the Applicant but was his brother, Hari Singh, (since dead), (4) that the Applicant was not at his shop when the sample was taken from Hari Singh, (5) that the defence of the Applicant that he was ignorant of the proceedings which took place during his absence was unsustainable. On behalf of the Applicant his Learned Counsel Sri A.D. Giri, contended that even if all the findings detailed above were accepted, the Applicant's conviction could not be sustained since there was no evidence to show that Hari Singh who sold the sample of mustard oil to the Food Inspector did so on behalf of the Applicant. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this contention is well founded.
(3.) SECTION 7 for the violation of which the Applicant has been convicted, in so far as it is material for the present purposes, reads thus: No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf...sell.... (1) Any adulterated food; ... ... ... ...;